On 11/10/10 01:29, magiccarpetride wrote: > > Photography is meant to be enjoyed by people, not blown up to a very > large size and then analyzed. Such experiment is at best geeky and thus > useless.
The use-case for the experiment was for large posters. It was not a pointless "geeky" experiment. > You can compare for yourself. Take a fancy digital camera, the fanciest > one there is (let's say something with 20,000+ pixels that retails for > $10,000.00+). Go to a park, preferably on a late sunny > afternoon/evening, and find a spot where the sun rays are shining > through leafy trees. Face the sunny rays so that your eyes squint, and > take a snapshot with the digital camera, and then from the same spot > take a snapshot with a film camera. > > Compare the prints -- you'll see that film is way superior in retaining > the extremes between bright light and shadows. Digital cannot come even > close at handling such heavy and demanding contrast. Thus digital is > clearly inferior to film. > > Similar reasoning goes for digital sound vs analog. Except that... well, as opaqueice has already suggested your understanding of these things is wrong on so many levels, and I can't be bothered to educate you. You may well enjoy your Caiman DAC, but it sure as hell ain't for the reasons you're claiming! R. -- "Feed that ego and you starve the soul" - Colonel J.D. Wilkes http://www.theshackshakers.com/ _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
